January 30, 2012

"... while giving a 14-percentage-point lead to Obama over Newt Gingrich. Swing-state voters also prefer Obama to Ron Paul and to Rick Santorum. Registered voters nationally express similar preferences, although Paul does slightly better at the national level than he does in the swing states."

160 comments:

The only polls to take seriously are after labor day.Until then most people don't really consider who they are going to vote for (or against) or even if they are going to vote. Until then the polls are snapshots that are good for that moment but are not really predictive.

If this election comes down to turnout, the Republicans are going to be glad they went with the uninspiring unprincipled unlikeable Mitt Romney whose one redeeming quality seems to be that he isn't Newt Gingrich.

Romney is too "nice" to return the blows from Obama and his surrogates should Mitt be the Republican nominee. That plus the mere hint of the R word would neuter him. Newt would return every blow and then some. Which makes these Gallup numbers contextless (if there is such a word).

That will avoid the coming 6 months of OWS marches based on the dry runs in Madison seen every night on the evening news. The hope will be that smiling Obama and mother Michelle can calm them down, while Mitt will ignore them and promise nothing at all.

Ultimate this is why Romney will win. Newt's negatives are too high for him to be elected. The difference between Newt and Romney is miniscule compared to the difference between either of them and Obama. Most people voting in the primary want whoever has the best chance of beating Obama, and Newt isn't it.

Ricpic: "Newt would return every blow.." So? Mafia would return every blow, are we going to elect a Godfather? For goodness sake, Newt was bought to shill for Freddie, globsl warming, any profitable "causes", he expanded earmarked spendings, he's ruthless and narcissistic. We already have a narcissist in the White House, we don't need another one. Their SOB is bad, we don't want another SOB, even he's ours.

The problem I have with most voters is they are generally ignorant of how the political system works. Most don't even know who their own governor/congressman/state senator is. They are aware of the POTUS incumbent and might vote against POTUS if they are feeling scared enough. That's the general level of sophistication of the "Swing voter".

Seriously. Those people who had Obama '12 stickers on their cars in 2009 already should really be checked for any sign of brain activity. Talk about giving up any pretense of rational decision making...

AA and readers......any thoughts on Obama's forcing religious institutions to pay for the birth control, sterlization, abortions, etc for their employees? Will this have an effect in November? The people who want this kind of mandates from the Fed'l govt are already voting for Obama.

Will this give ammo to the anti-Obamacare folks?

Isn't this exactly what we said 2 years ago....the now the fed'l gov't has full control of our health care and will make decisions that people don't want?

"ic said...What the hell is wrong with those people who still support Obama?"

Nothing's wrong with them. They're voting in their own best interests. Democrats make no apologies that their goal is not to make everyone better off, but rather to take from those with resources and give them to those who vote Democratic.

After Romney gets the nomination, this kind of thing really makes it hard for me to imagine that Obama can be re-elected. I really don't see why Romney's numbers won't be the ones to improve as people get used to him as the candidate. The president's numbers should be fixed in stone.

I really don't see why Romney's numbers won't be the ones to improve as people get used to him as the candidate.

This would be true except that the more people get to know Romney the less they like him. I think it's that thing where he seems not quite human that turns people off. Or maybe because he likes to gloat about how he got rich by bankrupting companies, firing workers, and destroying pensions.

ricpic wrote Newt's a fighter. Over time people come to respect a fighter they don't necessarily like.

Yet Obama won by convincing a lot of people that he was a new kind of non-confrontational politician. Even when he fought, esp. vs. the Clintons, he fought by proxy and his proxies used insidious smears that generated no respect.

It's easy to see that McCain's fuzzy-headedness did him no favors, but his candidacy suffered from multiple flaws.

I think you have a point, but it's just part of a much bigger picture. Hillary Clinton was probably the best fighter in either primary and certainly earned some respect for it, but in the end, Clinton didn't win.

And frankly, I think your faith in Newt Gingrich is wildly misplaced. Enlisting Gingrich as your candidate because he's a fighter is like hiring Mike Tyson as your heart surgeon because he's not squeamish.

And Obama hasn't even launched his campaign really. The election wil come down to turnout. If it's over 125 million Obama is home, less and it becomes more problematic. Personally I think it will be much the same as 2008 ie. 132 million.

At this stage, Romney running roughly even against an incumbent is a great indicator or the candidates strength and the incumbent President's relative weakness.As cubanbob, notes, however, this is subject to serious change given the Conventions, if Obamacare is found unconstitutional, once the 100s of millions brushing on a billion in Obamafunds plus his 2008 media lapdogs start really hitting it hard.

But a good indicator of Romney's relative strength at present time, Ron Pauls strong head-to-head against Obama (Paul only trails Obama by 5 points in current polls and matches Obama in net positive feelings voters have - Paul at +4, Obama at +5, ...and Romney at +7)As well as a damning indicator of Newt Gingrich's negatives with voters.."Noot!!, Noot!" is at MINUS 18 points in negative vs positive feelings voters have of the guy and he trails Obama by 13-16 points in head-to-head polls.

Wisconsin is the state most representative of the Nation as a whole (i.e. the most average on several indicators). At least, that was true as of three or four years ago. We should just have the election for President here and be done with it.

shiloh said...2010 was a ((("wave"))) election for Republicans, much like 1994 w/the political winds totally in the Reps favor.

And yet ...

29 of the nation’s states have Republican governors.

Republicans took control of at least 19 Democratic-controlled state legislatures and gained more than 650 seats. ( In Minnesota, Republicans won the Senate for the first time ever, while in Alabama, they took control for the first time since reconstruction. )

Russ Feingold, proud liberal, is out of office.

Barney Frank won't run again.

North Carolina’s Democratic governor, Bev Perdue just announced that she won’t run for a second term.

"Wisconsin is the state most representative of the Nation as a whole (i.e. the most average on several indicators). At least, that was true as of three or four years ago. We should just have the election for President here and be done with it."

And what's cool about that...if we dont' like who won, we can just have a do-over election 12 months later.

Agree with Rev.....recall Bob Dole coming across as an angry crank during the 1996 election. It didn't do him any favors. Most people like a fighter if he/she is on your side. But the general population may not see that as a good quality.

Jim Oberstar lost in Minnesota after being in the house for 40 years partially because he lost his temper during a debate and insulted the audience as being "members of the flat earth society".

The vetting thing.....if the Democrats weren't obsessed with the dark hue to Obama's skin, they would have nominated Hillary. She would have had many of the same policies, but not come across as incompetent.

This would be true except that the more people get to know Romney the less they like him. I think it's that thing where he seems not quite human that turns people off. Or maybe because he likes to gloat about how he got rich by bankrupting companies, firing workers, and destroying pensions.

And, yet, Obama himself has shown himself not all that likable, and his wife even less so - though by 1996, many already knew that Hillary! wasn't likable, but her husband was reelected anyway, because he was.

The side of Romney that may play well is that he sounds happy more than either Obama or Gingrich. I don't see Obama as the least up beat or happy, and surely isn't being the least bit inspirational. None of FDR's fireside chats to buck up the American people. If Romney can keep that going, in the face of probably a billion or so being spent by Obama and his allies to demean him, and the MSM piling on and carrying water for the Dems, as usual, then he has a good chance of winning.

As for how he got rich - I understand that you get your talking points from those who really don't understand this sort of stuff, but this sort of meme that you and they are trying to push here is getting harder and harder to justify. Go get an MBA, and then come back and debate this issue.

You also need to be thinking about why he brought that up. Ultimately, he will (probably) be running against someone who has no interest or ability to cut spending, regardless of how wasteful the federal spending. None, whatsoever. Rather, Obama seems to think that we can borrow more than a trillion dollars a year and give it to his political cronies, and that will get us out of the recession. Romney is setting himself up as the green eye shades guy, who can find a lot of the waste and can cut it out.

As an aside, I have never answered the question to my own satisfaction of whether President Obama is catastrophically illiterate and ignorant when it comes to economics, or he just figures that the role of government is to pay off those who got him elected. As has been repeatedly pointed out, he learned his politics in Chicago, and that is how it has always worked there (I remember 40 years ago hearing about how you got a driver's license there - by leaving some $20s on the seat when taking your driving test).

There is also some truth to Americans seeing the most successful Presidents as "nice guys" that they also know are steely and tough behind the scenes.

FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, Reagan, Clinton had "nice guy" images, but were absolutely in charge and could be ruthless on people that opposed issues near and dear to them.

Truman, LBJ, Nixon as well as failed candidates like Goldwater did not have "nice guy" images...the public perception was of Angry Fighters. All had big loss of support. Newt would be in their class...and even though Truman and growingly, Nixon, are seen as consequential Presidents that got a lot of things right, it didn't help with voters at the time and their image at the end of their time hurt not just them, but their whole Party's prospects.

Then you have the "nice but squishy" ones...Ford, Bush I, Carter, Bush II, Obama. Guys inept or not (Bush I was NOT inept)...that suffered from an inability to defend themselves or lead behind the scenes.

With Romney, there is a lot of good signs he is not in the "nice but squishy" camp, but in the camp of the nice guys who can push back and who are tough taskmasters behind the scenes demanding results. Besides his business background with tough choices and hard calls, he issued 600 vetoes in Massachusetts and was described by Democrats as "relentless - the boxing match that never ends". As a Bishop leading 600 stakeholders in his younger days, he was characterized as "caring, nice, but strict and demanding while he walked the walk himself". When he took over the Olympics - he gutted officials sumptuous meals and accomodations, slashed other costs, demanded full workdays and replaced paid people with volunteers. "He was friendly, but absolutely ruthless about making the Olympics a success, whatever that took. He was everywhere, hands on."

Enlisting Gingrich as your candidate because he's a fighter is like hiring Mike Tyson as your heart surgeon because he's not squeamish.

LOL

Also, I don't think this comparison of McCain & Romney (going soft on Obama) holds. The reason McCain was soft on Obama in 2008 was that the latter would be the First Black President Ever, a historic chance for national reconciliation & overcoming racism & healing the wounds of the past & blablabla. I really don't think McCain wanted to win; he didn't want to be responsible for thwarting all that wonderful wonderfulness. He didn't want to be the historic bad guy.

All that turned out to horsepuckey, but that's how the country felt at the time. The situation now is entirely different. The "First Black President" election only happens once; it happened; if that's what it took to "prove" the USA wasn't racist, well it was proved, and you don't have to prove the same thing twice.

Now O is just an incumbent as shitty as any other, maybe shittier than any other ever. If Romney's the nominee, he's going into the general election to take Obama down. In his own style-- not Gingrich's, or Palin's, not the kind of fire-breather many conservatives might like to see-- but just as ruthless. And more likely to be effective in the general than a rabblerousing demagogue whose platform mostly consists of railing against The Establishment (who are out to get Me, Newt the great).

Someone mentioned here before.....Bush should have lost 2000 (and lets not even talk about 2004). But Gore came across as an arogant bore. Remember the debate? Where Gore appeared to be trying to physically intimdate Bush?

To win people over, you don't bash the other viewpoints. Instead you have to conveince people that you are on their side and have their best interests in mind. If you are not likable, people will not feel like you care about them.

Frankly, what the hell has he done that did not profit him personally? What kind of fighter was he to throw a tantrum when Clinton made him exit Airforce One at the back of the plane? His behavior was embarrassing.

Can you imagine what Obama could goad him into saying and doing in a debate? A red faced Newt vs a smiling confident Obama. A sweaty Nixon vs a cool JFK. Reagan annihilated Carter with "there you go again", dismantled Mondale with not holding his young age and inexperience against him. Newt is no Reagan. Newt is not even in Nixon's league.

Can Newt attack Obamacare? No, he was one of the first politicians to push for personal mandate. Can he attack Obama's crony capitalism? No, he profited as a crony, that 1.5 million bucks Freddie kickback. Can he rage against how Freddie and Fannie caused the housing collapse? No, he profited from the housing collapse. How is he going to defend capitalism, the non-crony kind? He fell for the global warming scam, the green energy scam. He is a fool who is too smart for us.

Yashu - "The "First Black President" election only happens once; it happened; if that's what it took to "prove" the USA wasn't racist, well it was proved, and you don't have to prove the same thing twice."

Smart commentary, Yashu.I am reminded that Bill Bennett once said that in sports, the real blow for advancing blacks in management was not when the baseball owners hired the 1st black baseball manager...But when that 1st black baseball player was replaced for not doing a good job - and no one screamed "racist!" about Frank Robinson being replaced.

Someone mentioned here before.....Bush should have lost 2000 (and lets not even talk about 2004). But Gore came across as an arogant bore. Remember the debate? Where Gore appeared to be trying to physically intimdate Bush?

Interestingly, I mentioned at the time, that the photo of the federal SWAT agent apparently (but not really) pointing a machine gun at Elián González might just swing the next election. And, Florida was close enough, that it just might have.

I ♥ Willard, I hesitate to mention this to you because of my liberal empathy :-P but Willard lost several races in 2008 to that other well known RINO, McCain.

No sir. Willard withdrew from the race in a strategic maneuver to set himself up for a real election race in 2012. 2008 was nothing more than a practice run so it doesn't count against Willard's perfect election record.

creating blog like this is some thing a person seek knowledger even i am doing blogging for many years but can not create a single good blog you have done that thing in your blog have a very nice year of 2012

With Romney, there is a lot of good signs he is not in the "nice but squishy" camp, but in the camp of the nice guys who can push back and who are tough taskmasters behind the scenes demanding results.According to his Wikipedia entry, Romney issued nearly a thousand vetoes during his term as governor of Massachusetts. That sounds to me like someone who knows how to push back.

We should just have the election for President here and be done with it.

I admit it's good for the media here. Maybe Walker foresaw this and some of the 250K new jobs he promised were political consultants trying to manage Mitt's message for Milwaukee, Madison, Minocqua and Marshfield.

Caterpillar is having Exodus build equipement for them in Superior, resulting in about 250 new jobs.

Now for the life of me, I can't figure out why they don't just build the stuff in East Peoria Illinois, but instead are going to Wisconsin to do this manufacturing. What makes Wisconsin better to do business in than Illinois? Anyone got any theories?

Reagan trailed Carter by 20 points as late as March 1980. I don't think it matters. I'd be interested to see what George HW Bush's figures against Carter were at the same point though. I suspect people thought him "more electable" too.

Don't know who will win between Obama and Mitt but I do know that Mitt will do much better than McCain because:* McCain was a terrible candidate: old, short, ugly, cranky, hyper militaristic. McCain has always seemed a bit psycho to me and definitely has a profound anger problem. Mitt is a tall good looking, pleasant guy who is not hyper militaristic* McCain did a terrible job of tearing down Obama while Mitt has shown that he knows how to efficiently tear down down a rival (i.e. Newt). It is an essential part of the political process.* White racial guilt will be way lower this election than in 2008. The Althouse's of the world have shown they are not racist by voting for Obama in 2008. In 2012 they can can show they are not (persistently) stupid by not voting for Obama* Obama is no longer a black box, he has a terrible record to defend, including Holder, Wall Street cronies, NLRB, corrupt and enormously wasteful stimulus package, no budget for 3 years, EPA, government takeover of medicine, on and on. * The economy has sucked for Obama's whole term.

Mitt will have plenty of money to run negative ads on Obama to make people aware of how bad Obama has been for this country. The trick is to make the ads entertaining as possible.

The bland Romney runs even or ahead of our smartest ever president. And yet he hasnt started running against the president. Do not underestimate the fatigue voters have with Obama, the huge number of otherwise conservative voters who pulled the lever for BHO in expiation of their guilt and as a huge hug to their own egos. They will not make that mistake again. This election will be about BHO and that is a bad thing for BHO.

Lamest new argument against Romney, and I should have known that after I heard it on Limbaugh this morning I would see it here:

Yes, Romney has been effective in tearing down Newt. But he likes doing that because it's tearing down a true, non-RINO, Reaganite conservative.

Do you think Romney will do the same thing to Obama? NO! He won't. He won't want to displease the media. He's too much of a RINO. He has no balls. He won't do it, I just know it.

Note, you don't need any facts to make this argument. But, please, non-RINOs, given your gorgeous purity, make that argument passionately, and snipe angrily at any members of the Republican Establishment who disagree with you. You know they're members of the Republican Establishment because they disagree with you!

It's all about feelings now on the right.

Is Gingrich double-digits behind Obama! Doesn't matter. Only a RINO would think that matters. Newt will win because he's pure and he's not a RINO!

The fact to the matter is, fundamentally, it is clear that I am the SON of Reagan. Only I am the Logical and Political Heir to this Throne. Senator Santorum is not. Congressman Paul is not. And, especially, Governor Romney is not.

We're in for a bumpy ride. The GOP convention will probably be a swing-fest. And, IF Romney looks unbeatable to you ... I think he looks like the one person that would bring Donald Trump out of the woodwork. To run as an Independent.

Gallup would be better off offering a product that read poker cards. You could sit and look at the program's results; as you place your bets at the table.

I would feel pretty resentful about Romney being literally stuffed down my throat sideways.

Does it seem that way to you? I get that exact sense about Gingrich. The message from a lot of folks here and elsewhere on the web is that it's Gingrich or nothing, that failing to support Gingrich is the surest sign that you're both a RINO AND a member of the Republican Establishment. Somehow.

The fact to the matter is, fundamentally, it is clear that I am the SON of Reagan. Only I am the Logical and Political Heir to this Throne. Senator Santorum is not. Congressman Paul is not. And, especially, Governor Romney is not.

Since we are all taking what we want to from the polls cited above, to me they mean that Gingrich is unelectable.

At the end of the day, the GOP nominee is going to have to win Ohio plus at least 2 (if not 3) of the following states: Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Colorado. That is the unimpeachable electoral math.

The Newtists have never been able to convince me how he wins those key northern midwest states. Newt just isn't popular at all up here. Conservatism can be popular here. But not Newt.

Hmm. All this is so terribly interesting to me that I can hardly stand it. I am bursting. Why, the twists and turns toward an inescapable end are, are, almost suspenseful.

Gallup always makes me think of giddy up.

Gallup is not that interesting of a word in sign. Two words, actually, "horse," a one-handed ear flop, and "hop along," two-handed, two fingers each hand that form four horse legs hopping toward the viewer.

You can see the word demonstrated here if you like, by selecting G then scrolling the word list to gallup.

The word I learned for "riding a horse" is a little more interesting than the word for gallup. 'Riding a horse' is the same as 'straddle' except the straddle hands hop forward a couple of times.

Interesting bit on CNN tonight. Jack Welch was on. Former CEO of GE and NBC.Said he found from experience that there is nothing timid about Romney. Welch said that GE/NBC had staked nearly a billion on the 2002 Winter Olympics and it was right after 9/11, there were corruption scandals, bankruptcy loomed, and he was nervous as hell about it as GE's CEO. And Welch said he saw Romney come in - and directly and through reports of NBC execs to him - they saw Romney fix it. (He) "cleaned the whole mess up with a firmness and level of leadership like you wouldn't believe"

Caterpillar is having Exodus build equipement for them in Superior, resulting in about 250 new jobs.

Now for the life of me, I can't figure out why they don't just build the stuff in East Peoria Illinois, but instead are going to Wisconsin to do this manufacturing. What makes Wisconsin better to do business in than Illinois? Anyone got any theories?

Here a some theories, Chuck.

First, a massive open-pit iron ore mine will be built in northwestern Wisconsin. It will require HUGE construction equipment, and CAT wants to set up its initial outpost. Don't forget, CAT recently acquired Bucyrus Erie in Milwaukee, the world's largest manufacturer of the cranes and trucks used in open pit mines.

Second, Wisconsin now has a far more favorable tax and tort environment than Illinois. CAT's CEO threatened to begin moving parts of the Illinois plant to other states when the most recent tax increase was signed by Illinois' governor.

Third, Superior has a water port ideal for shipping heavy equipment. Most of CAT's larger equipment cannot be shipped by road, unless broken down into hundreds of truck loads. And then some of it still needs to be shipped overseas.

Nothing excites you more politically than a 3rd party effort from the right (particularly if the 3rd party candidate is Trump). Since this would hand the election to Obama, why should/would conservatives listen to your political advice/opinions?

"And even if the guy wins, he is a manage the decline Obama-lite. Hey, at least he won't push it down hill.

What an endorsement."

While Gingrich, under the highly doubtful scenario he should get the nomincation and then beats Obama, will go off chasing moon bases, endorsing the individual mandate with Hillary!, cutting PSAs with Pelosi on Global Warming, and giving us bogus lectures on false analogies as to why his fight with the Senate over a judicial appointment is just like the second day of Gettysburg, and he's Joshua Chamberlain at Little Round Top.

But I think Romney can be led. The Republicans who are serious about tackling our problems are in Congress -- people like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul. I don't see Romney leading the way on reforms, but I also don't see him getting in their way.

Gingrich, on the other hand, is the kind of guy who thinks only HE is capable of having good ideas. And most of his ideas suck.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

Just to map that into current reality, how long does the USA have until the dems have a large enough gov handout constituency that it is no longer possible for the GOP to win a prez election? At that point how long does it take for the USA to turn into a dictatorship? Is there any shiny line the dems would not cross wrt increasing the size and power of the federal gov? How would this process unfold?

Presumably history should provide some answers. The most obvious way would be to get at least 5 lefty political activists on the supreme court who would refuse to block dem executive branch power grabs. It would not take long for that to happen if the dems started winning all the prez elections.

It is urgent that the GOP become the party of the constitution and massively shrinking the size and power of the fed gov. The Tea party should hold some GOP prez debates with the questions focusing on how (in the real world) to shrink the power and size of the fed gov.

One way to appeal to hispanics is to define the GOP as the anti dictatorship party. Our friends south of the border in Central and South America know how precious democracy is.

Next, the republican party, now (like in 1964), finds itself divided. That Barry Goldwater got to be chosen to head the top of the ticket, was probably a great disappointment to Nelson Rockefeller.

But the Rockefeller's are still the ones in charge. And, the GOP tends to produce terrible candidates. Maybe, this is what keeps hope alive among the media types.

It's the media who came out to play when the original lineup of 9 showed up for Iowa. That's just too big a field.

Florida is a "flipper" state. If the question before Floridian's now is to pick someone other than Obama ... I'll guess that Mitt Romney suits this ticket. Like McCain did, back in 2008. And, you know the results of McCain's showing.

And, to this list you can add Bob Dole's showing ... when he was running against an incumbent whose bent erection you can describe.

While, yes. Having seen Ross Perot go crazy before election day in 1992 ... What would have been the result IF he didn't quit? (Do you notice that the elder Bush was gonna lose, anyway?)

Do you know, when Teddy Roosevelt tried to get Taft OUT of the GOP slot ... for his re-election ... Teddy Roosevelt started a 3rd party. The Bull Moose. And, Taft came in 3rd.

Politics being what it is, however, Harding would win, and appoint Taft to the Supreme Court.

Even if Romney satisfies the republicans in Florida ... I don't see him doing all that well in other States.

Ahead, Trump won't have to toss in ideas. But Gingrich will!

Most Americans don't want to elect somebody who is gonna be good at "managing the decline."

Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate; Quinnipiac, SurveyUSA Performed Strongly

"Rasmussen’s polls — after a poor debut in 2000 in which they picked the wrong winner in 7 key states in that year’s Presidential race — nevertheless had performed quite strongly in in 2004 and 2006. And they were about average in 2008. But their polls were poor this year.

The discrepancies between Rasmussen Reports polls and those issued by other companies were apparent from virtually the first day that Barack Obama took office. Rasmussen showed Barack Obama’s disapproval rating at 36 percent, for instance, just a week after his inauguration, at a point when no other pollster had that figure higher than 20 percent.

Rasmussen Reports has rarely provided substantive responses to criticisms about its methodology. At one point, Scott Rasmussen, president of the company, suggested that the differences it showed were due to its use of a likely voter model. A FiveThirtyEight analysis, however, revealed that its bias was at least as strong in polls conducted among all adults, before any model of voting likelihood had been applied."

But why is Florida now being given the keys to define what a conservative is?

In Iowa, where you'd find a home for social conservatives; 9 candidates trotted out on stage. And, lots of money was spent to turn the quest for the next GOP candidate into wall-to-wall television commercials. (Santorum won. But you were lied to. You were told Mitt Romney won. Didn't.)

And, now we're in Florida. If Mitt Romney falters, ahead, there will be a loud call for Jeb Bush to be drafted. Which really isn't good for the debates we should be having.

I take exception to Florida picking the candidate, based on its old age home status. ("Oh, look at what the grandparents are doing.")

Florida. The state where they sell more DEPENDS than in any other.

I am so not impressed!

And, how come there's been a shift away from calling somebody a republican, to call them "a conservative?"

Of course the "law prof" has completely ignored the Ga. Eligibility hearing about Obama, who gave a big middle finger to the proceedings even though he was subpeonaed to appear. There the true Constitutional issue was put on the record--- that Obama was born British, of a British subject father, and is not an eligible natural born Citizen. Orly Taitz, double agent lackey of the Usurper tried to keep the BC diversion in the forefront at that hearing, and Rachel Madcow certainly uses her to do the same, ignoring the true Constitutional issue.What are you teaching in that "law" class "law prof"? There will be many of these eligibility actions brought in many states, but the "law prof" is oblivious. When I bring mine it will be posted here.

How good were the dozens of debates so far? Why is it the only exchanges that seemed to catch fire, dealt with Newt Gringrich?

Gingrich needed John King's question about Marianne? Why? Because ABC went and did an interview with Newt's bitter second wife. Newt's happily married now.

Then there was Wolf Blitzer's question, asking Newt about Mitt Romney's personal tax returns, and if they were good enough to satisfy him on "transparency." Newt let him have it!

As to the question of what can Obama do in a second term, you know the answer involves those elected republicans who go to Congress ... and pass whatever they can earmark. (Like SOPA.)

There's also Obama's reach, where he sent the FBI to New Zealand. To take down MegaUpload. No trial. Nothing to do with anything but the "executive power to sign treaties." Obviously, we now have a treaty with New Zealand to wreck CLOUD technology. Or you didn't know millions of people stored their personal photo and data files at MegaUpload?

Yup. I still think Donald Trump can come out at the end of May, or the beginning of June, and run an Independent campaign. He's not going to have to beg for money.

And, there will be plenty of people who feel locked out, now, because of all the manipulating ... who will turn and listen.

You should have seen Ross Perot knocking the elder Bush out of office! While we've got congress critters on both sides who stink to the high heavens.

Newt's not going to shut-up, either. The only really secure jobs belongs to Wolf Blitzer and John King. And, if Newt's in the February 22nd debate? I think people will tune in.

Revenant, was mostly being sarcastic, as again, polls this far out are meaningless, especially biased Rasmussen.

btw, was being sarcastic 'cause I want to fit in at Althouse. ;)

>

Re: Nate Silver's accurate pollster evaluation, interesting to note, he, like most of the MSM predicted mama grizzly would run for pres (3+) years ago, but I was one of the few at 538.com which knew palin would never run as she's only in it for the $$$. Not a tough/hard call, even before she quit as governor.

The MSM of course, was hoping she would run for the entertainment value alone, but it wasn't a total loss as comedians trump, bachmann, perry, Cain etc. stepped in to pick up the slack! :D

March 6th is Super Tuesday. When 10 States, together, hold their primaries.

If you want to believe the media, then you're betting Newt won't carry a single state, ahead. Because the old folk in Florida ... are dictating outcome.

Oh, and if Mitt fails? Florida will begin dictating "draft Jeb Bush."

While overall, turnout remains unknown.

Do people really want their heroes selected for them?

What if 2012's election rewrites history? What makes you think the Internet doesn't reach people.

Or that (even as you see here), it's still not a Mitt Romney love fest.

Sure. The GOP has selected tepid candidates, before. Where did it get them?

Oh, while you're checking the thermometer, have you noticed that the media wasn't able to still Sarah Palin?

Meanwhile, I think the circus gets more interesting right after Labor Day. And, if the horse that falters is Obama, Hillary comes out of the woodwork.

Donald Trump has a few advantages. First, he's not crazy like Ross Perot. Two, he's got the cash, the airplane, and the media savvy. We're heading into campaigns that won't be done by tour bus.

While Harry Truman was the last guy to use the rails well. You know, too, that Truman was NOT supported by his own democrats! That's why Eisenhower aced two terms. Though no one, it seems, wants to take credit for being an Eisenhower republican. Why is that? It's not like the 20th Century held a lot of GOP winnahs.

Romney is principled enough to make piles of money in business, likeable enough to maintain a successful and happy marriage, and all-around swell enough to donate piles of his cash to charity and smart enough to get elected AND get things done as a Republican in one of the bluest states in the country.